He doesn't realize the debate was over years ago.See the OP, My Other OP's, and Thousands other of my posts you 12 IQ Troll
They ALL address the problem.
You are too stupid to debate.
`
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He doesn't realize the debate was over years ago.See the OP, My Other OP's, and Thousands other of my posts you 12 IQ Troll
They ALL address the problem.
You are too stupid to debate.
`
He doesn't realize the debate was over years ago.
They are so remorseful, so damned guilty, yes they quit using fossil fuels!!!!Obviously. That's why you stopped all use of fossil fuels. Right?
It’s all because we didn’t throw Joe in the volcano.I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...
Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.
And what problem is that? Rising temperatures that arent happening? Are you investing in the Green New Scam? Is that why you are such a Globull Warming Zealot?See the OP, My Other OP's, and Thousands other of my posts you 12 IQ Troll
They ALL address the problem.
You are too stupid to debate.
`
The whole economy was based on fossil fuels , the change over will take years but it will happen wether you like it or not Let's hope we can do it before the fossil fuels get too expensive to use or are exhausted completely.Obviously. That's why you stopped all use of fossil fuels. Right?
One of the most idiotic things trump ever said. And he still wonders why most people believe he's an idiot !Their eating the pets!!!!
The whole economy was based on fossil fuels , the change over will take years but it will happen wether you like it or not Let's hope we can do it before the fossil fuels get too expensive to use or are exhausted completely.
Wiki ContinuesAnd what problem is that? Rising temperatures that arent happening? Are you investing in the Green New Scam? Is that why you are such a Globull Warming Zealot?
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148](i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Scientific projections and statistics are NOT speculation. Speculation.is done in the marketplace , and in betting. Climatology is neither of those.From a scientific paper:
Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4
Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5
Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening - PMC
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Debate on what problem?He doesn't realize the debate was over years ago.
Who’s they?Their eating the pets!!!!
This I will tell all. The day that Professor Richard Lindzen tells us to worry, then I will worry. The day Professor Judith Curry says worry, I will worry.Scientific projections and statistics are NOT speculation. Speculation.is done in the marketplace , and in betting. Climatology is neither of those.
Projections are speculation. Why don't you listen to some genuine climate scientists like Dr. Judith Curry and also Dr. Richard Lindzen? Both specialise in this topic. Lindzen published around 250 papers on this topic and all were peer reviewed.Scientific projections and statistics are NOT speculation. Speculation.is done in the marketplace , and in betting. Climatology is neither of those.
Any forecast that does not have 100% certainty is speculation, dummy.Scientific projections and statistics are NOT speculation. Speculation.is done in the marketplace , and in betting. Climatology is neither of those.